# In the matter of M/S. Jai Balaji Industries Vs. D.K. Mohanty & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2021

> SC judgment dated 2021-10-01. Citation: TCN-2021-SC-00013. The case involves appeals filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by an…

- **Court:** SC
- **Order date:** 1 Oct 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-SC-00013
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/ms-jai-balaji-industries-vs-dk-mohanty-anr-civil-appeal-no-5899-of-2021-0388a907

## Summary

### Background

The case involves appeals filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by an operational creditor, M/S. Jai Balaji Industries, challenging a common order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The NCLAT had set aside orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, which had admitted the appellant's application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the respondent No. 2 company, Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited. The dispute arose from alleged non-payment of operational debts claimed by the appellant based on arbitral awards.

## Facts

M/S. Jai Balaji Industries (appellant) is engaged in manufacturing and supplying iron and steel products. Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited (respondent No. 2) is in the business of selling iron ore. The appellant and respondents entered into Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) in 2003 and 2004, where the respondent No. 2 agreed to supply iron ore to the appellant. Disputes arose regarding supply and payment, leading the appellant to invoke arbitration. Two arbitral awards were passed in favor of the appellant in 2010, ordering the respondent company to pay Rs. 4.44 crores and Rs. 2.79 crores respectively. The respondent company challenged these awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitions were dismissed by the District

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether a pre-existing dispute existed between the parties before the issuance of demand notices …

**Ratio:** The legal principle is that for an application under Section 9 of the IBC to be

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the restoration of the appeals against the arbitral awards

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 8(2)(a) of the IBC to mean that the existence of

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts by noting that the respondent company

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** DINESH MAHE…; VIKRAM…
- **Appellants:** M/S. JAI BALAJI…
- **Respondents:** Orissa Minerals…; D.K. MO…
- **Other parties:** Affir…

## Timeline

- **2003-08-13 — MOU between Appellant…**: Appellant and Respondents entered…
- **2004-03-11 — MOU between Appellant…**: Appellant and Respondents entered…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 62 — Appeal to Supreme Court](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-62)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/ms-jai-balaji-industries-vs-dk-mohanty-anr-civil-appeal-no-5899-of-2021-0388a907